Punjab Police Rules | DM's Concurrence Not Required To Initiate Departmental Proceeding In Corruption Case Against Cops: High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that as per Punjab Police Rules (PPR) concurrence of the District Magistrate will not be required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against police men in corruption cases.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal referring to PPR (Rule 16.40) said, "The authorities were supposed to initiate judicial prosecution or departmental proceedings depending on circumstances of each case. There is no requirement to seek concurrence of District Magistrate under Rule 16.40, thus, respondent has lawfully initiated departmental proceedings."

"The petitioners have been booked under PC Act which is a special law, thus, their prosecution has no concern with general law i.e. PPR. The petitioners under PPR are subjected to departmental proceedings as contemplated by Rule 16.40 read with 16.24. There is no requirement to seek concurrence of District Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Rule 16.24 read with 16.40," the Court added.

These observations were made while hearing a batch of petitions filed by Harlan Police Personnels seeking direction to the State to not to proceed with the departmental inquiry initiated against them during the pendency of criminal trial in FIR pertaining to under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198

The Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that concurrence of the District Magistrate was mandatory for initiating departmental proceedings and said requirement has been carved out for the protection of police officials and the argument of petitioners is misconceived.

"The Rule provides that where preliminary enquiry or investigation prima facie establishes that offence has been committed, judicial prosecution shall normally be initiated," the Court opined

In a given case Superintendent of Police despite complaint alleging commission of offence, may form an opinion that departmental proceedings should be initiated. Initiation of departmental proceedings instead of prosecution is contrary to normal Rule, thus, it has been provided that concurrence of District Magistrate shall be obtained.

"If it is established in the preliminary enquiry or investigation that offence has been committed still departmental proceedings are initiated, it may prejudice interest of the complainant. Thus, it has been provided that concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained. The object of seeking concurrence of District Magistrate is to ensure by an independent agency that departmental proceedings may be initiated instead of criminal proceedings," the Court added.

The Court also addressed another issue raised by the petitioners that if departmental proceedings are not deferred at this stage and they are compelled to disclose their evidence during departmental proceedings, it would materially prejudice their stand in criminal proceedings.

Rejecting the contention, the Court said, "it can be concluded that the respondent cannot travel beyond the police report, thus, no prejudice is going to be caused to petitioner, if he leads his defence in departmental proceedings."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Title: VINOD KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 15246 and 28784 of 2022 and 18081 of 2024.

Mr. Kuldeep Choudhary, Advocate, for Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-35597-2019).

Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-19655-2022).

Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP Nos.8550 of 2023 and 17253 of 2024).

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

Click here to read/download the order